Parole of “Lifers” and Issue of Remorse Comes Under Committee Spotlight

Parole for inmates sentenced to life imprisonment, along with the issue of prisoner remorse when making decisions on the granting of such parole came to the attention of the Portfolio Committee on Correctional Services yesterday during a briefing from the Department of Correctional Services on the process leading to the cancellation or revocation of parole for "lifers", as they are commonly known.

Committee Members highlighted the case of Mr Januzs Walus, who was found guilty of the murder of anti-apartheid activist and former leader of the South African Communist Party Mr Chris Hani in 1993. Members took exception to the fact that after Walus's release on parole in 2022, he said in an interview that, if given the opportunity, he would repeat his actions. Walus was deported to Poland in 2024.

Committee Member Mr Carl Niehaus was the first, during the meeting, to suggest the possibility of having Walus returned to South Africa and re-arrested for his utterances. Mr Niehaus, like many other committee members, was under the impression that Walus was still under parole and had broken his parole conditions. Another committee member, Mr Marlon Daniels, agreed that Walus had shown no remorse and that his parole should be revoked.

According to Committee Member Mr Mzanele Major Sokopo, the briefing the committee received yesterday made it clear that prior to the Correctional Services Act of 1998, "life sentences meant life imprisonment" for those offenders. He wanted to know what happened to those inmates sentenced prior to this.

Correctional Services Minister Dr Pieter Groenewald told the committee that Walus's sentence falls within the terms of the Van Vuren Constitutional Court judgement, which referred to those sentenced to life before 1 March 1994. The judgement confirmed that a life sentence meant serving at least 10 years of a sentence or 15 years in the case of serious circumstances. Thereafter, these inmates are placed on parole for a period of three years. Over 360 lifers benefited from the Van Vuren judgement, including Walus.

As Walus killed Mr Hani in 1993, he benefited from the Van Vuren ruling and served his sentence and three-year parole period before he was deported.

Meanwhile, on the cancellation of parole for Frans du Toit and Theuns Kruger (who brutally raped Ms Alison Botha in 1997), the Minister explained that it is first for the Parole Board to assess an application and make a recommendation to the National Council for Correctional Services (NCCS). The NCCS will then assess the recommendation on the basis of all the files and make its own decision, which is sent to the Minister. Before making his determination in this matter, the Minister considered a risk analysis, among other things.

Committee Member Ms Kabelo Kgobisa-Ngcaba enquired as to the origins of the move to cancel parole for Du Toit and Kruger. She said the Correctional Services Act does not speak to the Minister initiating a process to revoke parole and, therefore, she wanted a better understanding of the process.

Minister Groenewald said in explanation that the department received notice of litigation from Ms Botha's legal representatives indicating that, among other things, there had been no victim consultation in the parole process. The Minister indicated that the department received legal advice on the matter. He also considered the utterance of the judge in the case, who said neither of the two men should ever be allowed out on bail due to the brutality of their crime.

"The committee noted the Minister's conviction on the matter and his stance that he is prepared to fight to defend his decision to cancel the parole in court. We appreciate the fact that he took all matters into consideration when he made his determination," said Mr Jahno Engelbrecht, the committee Chairperson.

The committee also received a briefing on the process of overhauling South Africa's parole system. The committee expressed serious concern about the number of vacancies on Correctional Supervision and Parole Boards. The committee heard that the Department of Correctional Services has had to defend a number of disputes in various courts owing to conflicts in the contracts of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of Correctional Service Parole Boards. In an effort to put an end to this problem, a number of engagements were held with affected parties, including obtaining a legal opinion on how the matter could be resolved. The legal opinion obtained culminated in the drafting of a revised contract.

"The committee will monitor these matters very closely, as it is important to fully capacitate them," said Mr Engelbrecht.

Rajaa Azzakani
14 May 2025